This has been well worth a couple of hours of my Thursday evening. Thank you for your clear and straightforward explanation of Aristotelian syllogistic logic! I had classes in informal and symbolic logic but have only picked this stuff up piece-meal as I've studied ancient and medieval philosophy, so the systematic approach was helpful in solidifying things (and identifying technical terms that bypassed me previously).
I feel quite confused seeing the example "All that glitters is not gold" translated to "Some S are not P". It should be "No S are P" right? If it's "Some S are not P", the phrase should be "Things that glitters is not all gold".
It might help to begin by rephrasing the original sentence to capture its true meaning. "No thing that is gold is a thing that glitters" doesn't sound right. That's like saying "Gold doesn't glitter." "No thing that glitters is gold" also doesn't sound right. Again, that would be saying "Gold doesn't glitter." The sentence is actually saying "There are glittery things. Some, but not all, of those glittery things may be gold, but there are also other things that glitter that are not gold." The "other things that glitter that are not gold" are the "Some things that glitter are not things that are gold" example in the video, rephrased as "Some S are not P." Does that make sense?
